Wiktionary:Tea room/2025/July
Creating female genitalia and male genitalia as translation hubs
I bring this up somewhat bashfully. I'm not much of a fan of translation hubs, but think we should create the entries female genitalia and male genitalia for this purpose. The terms are sum-of-parts and so do not otherwise qualify as entries in their own right, but—correct me if I'm wrong—English does not appear to have any other suitable entries for these terms where translations can be placed. For example, it does not seem accurate to put translations for the female genitalia at vagina or vulva (which are parts of the female genitalia), and it does not seem appropriate to put translations at slang words such as pussy (which seems to be where most of the translations have ended up) or prat (one Finnish translation). I have not checked where translations for male genitalia are being placed. I encountered this issue when editing old hat, an archaic slang expression for the female genitalia. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think the traditional place is pudendum muliebre; that this would only mean vulva and not everything beginning from there and distinguishing the sex’s functions is doubtful to me. I don't remember pudendum virile as a thing, in place of membrum virile. Fay Freak (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: with respect, no average user is going to think about looking for translations at that entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw: This is true. Why should they look up SoP entries though :/? They still will, irrespective of our wishes, search pussy, because virtually all terms vague enough to make no distinction between vagina and vulva are somewhat risqué if not vulgar, and so are the connotations risked when talking about the matter and searching for target terms. The problem is that you got one of the practically rarer academic contexts, as an editor, when portraying and linking terms, which a priori attains lower ranks in internet popularity.
- Maybe we should have translation tables inside topic-pages in the Thesaurus namespace for such cases, not depending on any language entries. This also works for abstract grammatical features: Appendix:Terms with no English equivalent/yes-no I now find moved from the mainspace, having not too few hits. (At first someone boldly made a table template added to Arabic etc. entries—still visible in the history of this page—because after all the English equivalent is no word.) Fay Freak (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Fay Freak: with respect, no average user is going to think about looking for translations at that entry. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- What are the translations which actually need a better home? Spot-checking, it seems like the translations at pussy are labelled as vulgar and/or slang, and thus correctly placed in that entry. And vagina is commonly used to mean the entire apparatus including the vulva, so it seems like the best place to put any translations which refer to that. How many words are there which would actually be more sensibly placed on an entry like female genitalia? How many one-word/idiomatic translations are there which refer to the entire male genitalia and thus cannot be placed at penis, but are also not slangy or vulgar and so can't be placed somewhere like package? - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @-sche: those are good questions that I don’t know the answers to. I assumed that there are non-SoP terms in other languages for these body parts, and would be somewhat surprised if there aren’t. Do enlighten me, people. — Sgconlaw (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Support only if there are enough non-slang terms to warrant creation (as noted by sche). to respond to @Fay Freak, users looking for translations in specific are the ones who would be searching for these entries. to accomate further, if these entries are made, then on other pages (like vagina, vulva, pussy, etc.), should have a "see-also" translation template to direct users: e.g. in the section it would have "female genitalia" directing to the new entry and "part of the genitalia" (vagina, vulva) or "slang: female genitalia" (pussy) remain in the old entries. Juwan (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)- Support creation if it can satisfy WT:THUB criteria; criteria 1 and 3 should be satisfied, but no translations (criterion 2) have been mentioned yet. Polomo (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
antaa potkut
Can anyone figure out why antaa potkut is in CAT:Finnish links with manual fragments? I'm not finding any manual fragment there. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- I changed
{{ll}}to{{l}}and the category went away. It looks like some kind of interaction with{{fi-infl-vp-accusative}}. Maybe @Surjection can figure out what happened. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC){{fi-infl-vp-accusative}}wraps the first parameter in{{m|fi|...}}. I used{{ll}}to get it to link to the correct ID. I don't know why doing that would add the entry in the manual fragment category. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 12:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
sense: "(often derogatory) A person who attends, attended, or is likely to attend Harvard; by extension, a person very successful academically."
- This nickname(?) is used to draw attention to a person's academic success, often to embarrass them. Is derogatory the right word.
- Is this worth splitting into two definitions? DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Proposal: “decolonial minimalism” as a neologism with philosophical/artistic usage
Hi everyone,
I’m proposing the inclusion of the term “decolonial minimalism”, which I’ve coined to define a minimalist artistic and intellectual framework that actively resists colonial aesthetics and dominant cultural narratives. It’s rooted in postcolonial thought, particularly within Filipino contexts, and is being documented through zines, visual archives, and digital publications.
While the term is still emerging in durable third-party sources, I’ve been actively archiving its usage and provenance. Here are some early references:
• Foundational Manifesto and Timeline: Decolonial Minimalism (https://wannabelabs.com/decolonial-minimalism)– Founding Works (https://wannabelabs.com/decolonial-minimalism-founding-works.html)
Art Movement Historical Record - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gXYcfMm5jh16cS_X6Q7otDol8DKzUAve/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=116495908517637119088&rtpof=true&sd=true
• Philosophical framing and provenance documentation: Decolonial Minimalism in Art: Reclaiming Space, Silence, and Memory (https://www.academia.edu/129488482/Decolonial_Minimalism_in_Art_Reclaiming_Space_Silence_and_Memory)
• Cultural context and digital practice: Quiet Power: How I Elevate Filipino Art Through Decolonial Minimalism (https://www.digitalartsblog.com/community-blog/quiet-power-how-i-elevate-filipino-art-through-decolonial-minimalism-ijwbaa)
• Media coverage and international reception: Filipino artist IJWBAA redefines minimalism with a decolonial lens (https://theglobalfilipinomagazine.com/filipino-artist-ijwbaa-redefines-minimalism-with-a-decolonial-lens/)
The term appears in artist manifestos, zines, and curated digital exhibitions. I’ve also included photographic documentation (e.g., archival placards and visual timelines) to support its origination and usage.
I understand Wiktionary’s emphasis on third-party attestations, and I’m open to feedback on how to responsibly document terms that are in active circulation but still gaining formal recognition. I’d appreciate any guidance on formatting, sourcing, or collaborative refinement.
Thank you for considering,
Paul (IJWBAA) IJWBAA (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Our Criteria for inclusion also require that these uses are independent, which is IMO insufficiently clear for these references. We furthermore distinguish uses from mentions (see use–mention distinction). In the phrase “This movement is called Decolonial Minimalism”, the term is mentioned, not used, and the fact that the term is next defined, following the question, “What is Decolonial Minimalism?” reinforces this.
- Once the term starts being used, also in reference to the work of other artists, without needing its meaning to be explained to the reader, the term has been adopted into the English lexicon and is ready to be included in dictionaries. It will then be clear how the entry can be formatted, sourced, and if necessary refined.
- Inasmuch as you can stimulate the process of adoption, may I suggest that you try to persuade like-minded artists, also from other decolonized countries, to start using the term in describing their own work? If you can be perceived as a multinational vibrant movement, approach people from the art world who are sympathetic to the movement and could curate a joint exhibition. Set your aim at an exhibition with a catalogue in a prestigious location, using the term in its title. I know, all easier said than done, but don’t set your aim too low. ‑‑Lambiam 14:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the thoughtful guidance. I agree that broader, independent usage is essential for lexical inclusion. I’ll continue fostering cross-cultural artistic collaborations and encourage like-minded creators to adopt Decolonial Minimalism in describing their own work. The vision is indeed to evolve it into a living, multinational movement—one that speaks for itself without requiring definition. Your insight helps shape that path forward. IJWBAA (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Peach Melba initial capital
Should probably be a small p. Wikipedia doesn't capitalise it (except at beginning of sentence). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5CB5:B3CC:2D66:8AC5 09:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- not true Piñanana (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
I think this word can have a secondary stress on the second syllable as well. Also, why is there a dot after the first "s" in the pronunciation guide? Having a syllable boundary there makes little sense to me. -- Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- You can add just a hyphen there. The dot is there to represent how consonant clusters are generally broken in speech when there is nothing else to suggest where they should be broken. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Agogare, Атас
These words are related in (archaic) meaning. Is there a convention on adding/linking different languages? https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%81 https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/agogare LongLiveTrain (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
martymachlia
martymachlia - the Greek word “martys” means witness
but nothing else via web search....
Piñanana (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
თავისუფლება (proper noun)
We have a definition for თავისუფლება (tavisupleba) as a proper noun meaning "Freedom Square, Tbilisi". But the official name for that place is თავისუფლების მოედანი (tavisuplebis moedani, literally “Freedom Square”).ka.wikipedia
Is თავისუფლება (tavisupleba) a commonly used ellipsis of the full name? The only toponymic entry for თავისუფლება (tavisupleba) on Georgian Wikipedia is for a village in Abkhazia. Voltaigne (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- that'd be just a colloquial shortening Slowcuber7 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I found this term whilst scouring the internet archive and it appears to be Franco-Provencal.
The following dictionaries seem to define it:
- Vocabulaire français-provençal
- Dictionnaire Provençal-Français ou Dictionnaire de la langue d'oc ancienne
- Dictionnaire provençal-français
At first, I assumed it was suffixed with some derivative of -tor, but I can't find any page for -tour or any other Provencal words with this suffix. This dictionary seems to suggest that it also borrows from the Latin word actor. I don't think a compound of gesticulor + actor would work in the Latin language and I can't find any other information on it, so I suppose the term would have to be a post-Latin development. I would assume, therefore, that it was probably an independent creation of Provencal, although I can't confirm that hypothesis. I also can't find any actual quotations on the internet archive, google scholar, or google books.
Graearms (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Graearms: Provençal and Franco-Provençal are two completely different languages. Provençal is a dialect of Occitan (code
oc) spoken in Provence. Franco-Provençal (codefrp), also known by the less misleading name Arpitan, is spoken further north, in east-central France (Franche-Comté, Savoy, etc.), northwestern Italy (Val d'Aosta) and western Switzerland. However, the dictionaries you list above all actually seem to be dictionaries of Old Provençal, i.e. the Provençal dialect of Old Occitan (codepro), not Franco-Provençal. So, the place to look for the -tour suffix is in Old Provençal Occitan. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)- @Mahagaja
- Thanks for the clarification regarding the languages,
- I did some further research, and I found the existence of an Occitan term amatour (, , , ), which shows the same suffix -tour. This could be another Occitan descendant of -tor, although Wiktionary only provides the version -dor (see Category:Occitan terms suffixed with -dor). I found evidence for a fondatour () as a parallel to fondador and a servitour (, ), perhaps as a parallel to servidor if it maintained the meaning of Latin servitor. I also found evidence for servitour in this text documenting the dialect of Vannes. I suppose it may be an alternative form of the word. I don't know enough about the Romance languages to really sort this information.
- I also found some evidence for an Occitan term actour or atour
- Lou trésor dóu Felibrige; ou, Dictionnaire provençal-français, embrassant les divers dialectes de la langue d'oc moderne
- Dictionnaire français-occitanien
- Dictionnaire provençal-français ou Dictionnaire de la langue d'oc, ancienne et moderne, suivi d'un vocabulaire française provençal
- Vocabulaire français-provençal
- I suppose it is possible that this dictionary was correct and the term could have formed from a merger between atour or actour and some other word related to Latin gesticulor. Graearms (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Anything is possible, but considering how highly productive the -tor suffix is in Latin and the Romance languages, I think gesticulatour is highly unlikely to be a blend of gesticular and actor as opposed to a simple suffixed form gesticular + -tour. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
superb lily - (non)restrictive modifiers
"Any of genus Gloriosa of lilies native to tropical and southern Asia and Africa."
Is this supposed to mean "Those of the lilies of genus Gloriosa that are native to tropical and southern Asia and Africa." (ie, excluding those native to other parts of the world)? (restrictive interpretation, influenced by absence of comma before native) Or "The lilies of genus Gloriosa, all of which are native to tropical and southern Asia and Africa."? (nonrestrictive interpretation, which would be aided by presence of a comma before native) This reading reflects the facts.
This is kind of thing is very common in definitions of organisms. Do most users get the restrictve/non-restrictive distinction that I draw? Is there a better way of briefly communicating such facts than relying on punctuation? DCDuring (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Nonrestrictive. Commas are often avoided in definitions lest the following part be understood as an alternative wording for a gloss. I see how you can read it the restrictive way but the word melody or emphasis would make the formulation unlikely. I am out of creativity right now about how misinterpretation can be excluded briefly. Fay Freak (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose we could adopt the convention that alternative (reworded or different PoV) definitions could be separated by semicolons. And we could place synonyms where they belong. Too bad we can't count on the reader automatically understanding our intent, without the benefit of spoken delivery. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I initially interpreted it restrictively. I think using a comma, semicolon or colon would make the meaning clearer. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I always try to add the comma. Unfortunately, many who add definitions do not seem to check the facts and may not be sensitive to the restrictive/unrestrictive modifier distinction. But why should our definition writers be any better in this regard than the bloggers, journalists, etc who deserve to have an AI supervisor. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I initially interpreted it restrictively. I think using a comma, semicolon or colon would make the meaning clearer. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose we could adopt the convention that alternative (reworded or different PoV) definitions could be separated by semicolons. And we could place synonyms where they belong. Too bad we can't count on the reader automatically understanding our intent, without the benefit of spoken delivery. DCDuring (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- As a separate issue, I (at least) think "Any of genus Gloriosa of lilies" sounds odd, wanting a "the" before "genus" (and probably rephrasing). How's this? Improve further if needed. - -sche (discuss) 16:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- The rephrasing can be read as distinguishing the lily members of the genus from other, non-lily members of the genus. I don't object to the (OED, AHD, Century, MW1813, W1828, Wordnet), though MWOnline and WNW often have a. I think I picked up the nul-determiner usage from some scholarly articles and perhaps a taxonomy style guide in one of the Codes (not botanical, perhaps LPSN or ICTV). Reviewing Google Scholar hits shows that the nul-determiner is much less frequent than the. DCDuring (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Fair. ? (Hopefully basic knowledge of taxonomy rules out that there would be animals in the same genus as plants...) - -sche (discuss) 17:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- The rephrasing can be read as distinguishing the lily members of the genus from other, non-lily members of the genus. I don't object to the (OED, AHD, Century, MW1813, W1828, Wordnet), though MWOnline and WNW often have a. I think I picked up the nul-determiner usage from some scholarly articles and perhaps a taxonomy style guide in one of the Codes (not botanical, perhaps LPSN or ICTV). Reviewing Google Scholar hits shows that the nul-determiner is much less frequent than the. DCDuring (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Burst/come onto the market
Are both, onto and on the market being used here? That is, a variant of the latter.
I've stumbled upon many such contexts. JMGN (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Usually if you've seen "in" you can use "into", and if you've seen "on" you can use "onto". It goes beyond that, too: a product might be said to be heading toward/towards the market (during its development, before sale). English is very flexible. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9848:FEF4:B25:3C6E 21:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sometimes things get even more convoluted: burst into JMGN (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Burst upon is another example. DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sometimes things get even more convoluted: burst into JMGN (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
fast meaning promiscuous or immoral
There are two such senses at fast#Adjective:
- (dated) Having an extravagant lifestyle or immoral habits. a fast woman (+ cites)
- (offensive, vernacular, dated, of a girl or young woman) Uncharacteristically mature or promiscuous for one's age.
Should these be merged? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9848:FEF4:B25:3C6E 21:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- IMO, the only thing that keeps them from being redundant is the "mature" part of the second definition. Is that meaning attestable? The second seems to be a poor definition, apparently including women who experience early puberty. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- AHD has the following two definitions (among all the others):
- "a. Disposed to dissipation; wild: ran with a fast crowd.
- b. Flouting conventional moral standards; sexually promiscuous."
- Those definitions certainly overlap, but neither include "mature". DCDuring (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
English colour terms as nouns meaning a " thing"
thing"">edit]Normally I'd be braver and just make some of these changes, but since these are basic English words, I figure maybe there's good support for the status quo and I should start a discussion in the first place instead of doing something that gets reverted.
I don't think the second noun definition of blue and the "white bean" subdefinition of white should exist, since they're describing a feature of the language in general, not the word. You can use any adjective to mean an "X one" or the "X option", not just two specific colour terms.
There are other ones on other pages that are more specific but have the same idea, and it's inconsistent. yellow has a "yellow card" definition, without a counterpart on red. Some colours mention an X pigment and not others. Uncreative Username 37 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Grammatically, there are restricted contexts where any adjective can be used freely without an accompanying noun, but words like blue and white have some notability in that they can be used beyond those restricted contexts. For example, use of the pluralized forms ending in -s, "blues" and "whites", goes beyond what we normally see for any adjective.--Urszag (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure colour words are that unusual when it comes to being able to pluralize: can't you also say (for example) that a crowd of notables and/or deplorables turned up wearing larges and/or hand-spuns and handwovens? However, I do think all these words deserve noun sections as a result — just like any word that can be attested as a verb with verb inflections deserves a verb section, even though in theory any word can be verbed. (My opinion is that if someone sees "he counted three pintos and two whites on her plate" and looks those words up, it doesn't make sense for us to have a ===Noun=== section for "pinto" but expect the reader to somehow figure out on their own that the other noun should be sought in the ===Adjective=== section. I'm fine with merging any over-specific "a white X thing", "a white Y thing" senses into a general "a white thing" sense, though.) - -sche (discuss) 08:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just realized I used ambiguous wording with "beyond what we normally see for any adjective". I meant only that not all adjectives are freely used this way, not that no adjectives other than color adjectives are used this way.--Urszag (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure colour words are that unusual when it comes to being able to pluralize: can't you also say (for example) that a crowd of notables and/or deplorables turned up wearing larges and/or hand-spuns and handwovens? However, I do think all these words deserve noun sections as a result — just like any word that can be attested as a verb with verb inflections deserves a verb section, even though in theory any word can be verbed. (My opinion is that if someone sees "he counted three pintos and two whites on her plate" and looks those words up, it doesn't make sense for us to have a ===Noun=== section for "pinto" but expect the reader to somehow figure out on their own that the other noun should be sought in the ===Adjective=== section. I'm fine with merging any over-specific "a white X thing", "a white Y thing" senses into a general "a white thing" sense, though.) - -sche (discuss) 08:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- This thread makes me think of the mood conveyed by Geoffrey Pullum in his 2024 book when he poo-poos the idea that such nouns as the poor and the rich are merely "nominalized adjectives", even though it is common (and not scandalous) for people to think of them and describe them that way. His gist is that they are full-fledged nouns, more than people tend to appreciate. This thought makes me (i.e., someone who is not well CamGEL-versed) lean toward the gut feeling that -sche is right in saying (above), "However, I do think all these words deserve noun sections as a result". Quercus solaris (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, the reason I think something like "two pintos and three whites" deserves a noun section is because it's acquired an inflected form that nouns have and adjectives (in English) don't, namely a plural form. Something like "the poor" or "the recently killed" (which shows that not just adjectives can be used this way, but also verb forms) doesn't seem to have acquired noun-specific forms (?), so per Talk:sick#RFD_discussion:_September–December_2020 I think those should still be viewed as adjectives. I think of it as Occam's razor, to not posit a new POS unless we have to (this is also why I don't support positing that all nouns are also pronouns). - -sche (discuss) 17:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- This thread makes me think of the mood conveyed by Geoffrey Pullum in his 2024 book when he poo-poos the idea that such nouns as the poor and the rich are merely "nominalized adjectives", even though it is common (and not scandalous) for people to think of them and describe them that way. His gist is that they are full-fledged nouns, more than people tend to appreciate. This thought makes me (i.e., someone who is not well CamGEL-versed) lean toward the gut feeling that -sche is right in saying (above), "However, I do think all these words deserve noun sections as a result". Quercus solaris (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- AFAICT the general use of adjectives as common nouns for referring to entities that have a characteristic quality denoted by the adjective – apart from specific idiomatic cases that deserve special lexical treatment, such as “furry” – is restricted to plurals. If we have corresponding entries, they should note the restriction to the plural form.
- Here are a few uses of nominalized colour names:
- In these cases the names denote heritable phenotypical traits. I do not see comparable uses of non-colour adjectives for phenotypical characteristics, such as shape names to identify members of species as longs, shorts, pudgies, etc. ‑‑Lambiam 15:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not so sure that these are only plural. It's harder to find singular examples because searching for e.g. "a blue" (or even "a blue and", "a blue and a") also turns up adjectival uses like "a blue and a white thing", but I can find singulars of colour words, and I know size words can also be singular (e.g. the model google:"is wearing a small" or a large), and someone can be google books:"another notable from" somewhere, etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Unheard-of & untold: (near-)synonyms?
Outrageous: unheard-of conduct
Indescribable: untold suffering
https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=unheard-of&oldid=prev&diff=85500989 JMGN (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Defensibly construable as coordinate beneath extraordinary, but putting it at see-also is the least obtrusive option. It can live at see-also all day long without bothering anybody. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- At least to me, the senses are quite separate. While uses of unheard-of are generally hyperbolic, the literal sense is that something thus tagged is a novum, something that has not been reported before because it had thus far not occurred. So it is (hyperbolically) being described as being exceedingly rare, astounding, something you can’t believe actually happened. Only used to express a negative sentiment, synonyms of hyperbolic unheard-of are outrageous, scandalous, shocking. Use of the term serves to signals the speaker’s indignation.
- In contrast, the term untold has no specific role of expressing a moral judgement, and neither does it have a connotation that that which is said to be untold is rare – it is just that words fail to paint its quality. It can be “untold beauty”, “untold joy” or “untold perfection”. ‑‑Lambiam 13:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Our entry for ʽby a long shot’ has a linked Spanish translation to the phrase ‘ni con guinche’, only that phrase doesn’t seem to exist, as a redirect is in place which takes me to ‘guinche’ (meaning ‘crane’). Also, searching directly for ‘ni con guinche’ yields only one hit, the ‘by a long shot’ page itself. Could someone undo the redirect if possible? That might mean having to create a ‘ni con guinche’ page first, I suppose, but I’m not really sure what’s going on here. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- I had little problem finding uses of this collocation: , , . However, I have the feeling that the meaning of all given Spanish translations is negative, “not by a long shot”. I’ve just made ‘ni con guinche’ into a red link, as is not unusually for translations, especially multi-word ones. ‑‑Lambiam 12:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- not by a long shot. I don't think that by a long shot occurs very often on relatively current usage without close proximity to not with this definition. I would make not by a long shot a lemma entry, with the positive form ,by a long shot in its etymology. I don't think this dual-lemma approach is applicable to most negative polarity items, for which there are many occurrences in current English in irrealis clauses and/or in simple positive usage. DCDuring (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
pooltoy - sexual image
See Talk:pooltoy. Can we find a less sexual image? "Pooltoy" characters do not have to look like that. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:8D65:C8C3:ADBB:E9DF 06:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Let's not use the fallacy here. The image has been already toned down by request a lot, though I can grudgingly neuter it completely. Grudgingly because if Wikipedia is not censored then neither is Wiktionary.
- Still, "living inflatable"/"pooltoy" in furry fandom does contain a lot of anthropomorphized interpretations. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- agreed to everything that Sleeps-Darkly has said. Juwan (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- General practice here has been to not use eroticized (especially NSFW) images when non-eroticized ones better describe the term being illustrated. I think the objective has been to make as much of Wiktionary as possible acceptable to educators and parents of children who may use the site. Our role is principally to provide images when they are more explanatory than words alone. We are a pretty good source of search terms for specialized erotic and pornographic websites, which is to say that we are a complement to them, not a competitor. DCDuring (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- The editors above appear more knowledgeable on furry culture than me (at least I know Juwan is), but I’m curious whether the inclusion of this illustration (which I wouldn’t say bothers me very nuch) doesn’t reinforce a common misconception that fursonas, or furry culture in general, is inherently sexual? Of course these things are very related, but I believe I’ve seen much criticism about perceptions that they are inherently so. I imagine there are many pooltoys without big breasts and an hourglass figure, so, just as we wouldn’t define them as erotic, it might be worth it not including a sexualized image. Note that Wikipedia also has the guideline w:WP:GRATUITOUS, which addresses how “non-offensive” content is often preferred to “offensive” content if they are equally informative. Polomo (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- thank you for the comment! while the misconception that furry culture is not inherently sexual is important, it isn't yo be solved here. WP:GRATUITOUS is important, but as of now, we don't have illustrations of other OCs or by other artists. Juwan (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just came to the page to add to this. I was going to mention this, but never wrote it down: I’d much rather have this image than none at all (which is also something WP:GRATUITOUS speaks of). Further, I believe the image is far from vulgar, at least after its modifications, and thus
oppose removing it. Polomo (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- I just came to the page to add to this. I was going to mention this, but never wrote it down: I’d much rather have this image than none at all (which is also something WP:GRATUITOUS speaks of). Further, I believe the image is far from vulgar, at least after its modifications, and thus
- thank you for the comment! while the misconception that furry culture is not inherently sexual is important, it isn't yo be solved here. WP:GRATUITOUS is important, but as of now, we don't have illustrations of other OCs or by other artists. Juwan (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- The editors above appear more knowledgeable on furry culture than me (at least I know Juwan is), but I’m curious whether the inclusion of this illustration (which I wouldn’t say bothers me very nuch) doesn’t reinforce a common misconception that fursonas, or furry culture in general, is inherently sexual? Of course these things are very related, but I believe I’ve seen much criticism about perceptions that they are inherently so. I imagine there are many pooltoys without big breasts and an hourglass figure, so, just as we wouldn’t define them as erotic, it might be worth it not including a sexualized image. Note that Wikipedia also has the guideline w:WP:GRATUITOUS, which addresses how “non-offensive” content is often preferred to “offensive” content if they are equally informative. Polomo (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- General practice here has been to not use eroticized (especially NSFW) images when non-eroticized ones better describe the term being illustrated. I think the objective has been to make as much of Wiktionary as possible acceptable to educators and parents of children who may use the site. Our role is principally to provide images when they are more explanatory than words alone. We are a pretty good source of search terms for specialized erotic and pornographic websites, which is to say that we are a complement to them, not a competitor. DCDuring (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The etymology (1) at good: we're only going to showcase 2 Russian cognates ? Leasnam (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- There aren't that many cognates outside of Germanic to begin with, but I replaced one of the Russian ones with a Lithuanian one that has closer semantics. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Looks good, thank you ! Leasnam (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
As a Cantonese speaker, 黑糖 and 黃糖 denote completely different things. Here on the Wiktionary entry it only lists the former as a dialectal synonym of the latter, but in Cantonese, especially HK and Macau Cantonese, 黑糖 is a kind of less-refined sugar commonly found in Taiwanese and Japanese sweets, whereas 黃糖 is just the standard word for brown sugar. OTOH, I did a quick search, and I'm not sure whether muscovado is necessarily a synonym of the less-refined sugar, and not jaggery either. If anyone has any input on this, I'd love to hear it. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Territory flag emojis
there are a couple of entries for territory flag emojis (category). as of today, these include Brazil, Hong Kong, India, Nigeria, US and the US Outlying Islands. I wish to know, how should these be handled in Wiktionary? should there be a template for this type of definition? should the pages for all countries be created, possibly with a bot? should these be deleted instead? Juwan (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
itimil
While enjoying a hot chocolate, I randomly stumbled upon this Reddit thread about a map of translations of "chocolate". Comments by Turkish speakers seem to suggest "itimil" is a made up translation. As far as I can tell, it was added in Special:Diff/49938238 by an anonymous IP user, which makes it even more sketchy. I do not speak any Turkish, but if anyone here does, could you please shine your light? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- google books:"itimil" chocolate turns up only one recent dictionary, which may have cribbed it from us, which is not encouraging. Pinging a couple of Turkish speakers: @BurakD53, Djkcel. - -sche (discuss) 00:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Never heard that word in my life! DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 01:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have removed it. - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Never heard that word in my life! DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 01:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Xītóu versus xǐtóu
Searching for Xitou, as in Xitou Nature Education Area, does not lead to Xītóu (溪頭) but redirects the seeker to xǐtóu (洗頭). ‑‑Lambiam 06:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Give: synonym of toast?
As in I give you the bride and groom!
https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=toast&diff=prev&oldid=85515374 JMGN (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- @JMGN: no, the statement just means that the speaker is presenting the bride and groom to the guests. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw Contact the lexicographers at OED and warn them about such a grievous mistake : http://web.archive.org/web/20200712172005/https://www.oed.com/oed2/00094978 JMGN (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw In case you need it here's OED's toast too: http://web.archive.org/web/20200713064201/https://www.oed.com/oed2/00253682 JMGN (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- @JMGN: I don't think anyone appreciates such snarkiness from you. Moreover, instead of wasting time, you could have just mentioned the OED entry and asked for comments on what it means. Sense VI.27 defines give as "To offer, propose as a sentiment or toast." It seems to me that the modern sense in this regard is "to offer (a toast)" (as in "to give a toast"), and that the sense "to make a toast to (someone or something)" (perhaps as in the quotation from Dickens' Pickwick Papers: "Gentlemen, I'll give you the ladies; come."—having read the relevant page the meaning isn't very clear to me) is archaic. The OED entry has not been updated since 1898. (Pinging @-sche who reverted your edit in toast.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Sgconlaw I still cannot see your comments backed up by any academic references. Here's another one https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=give JMGN (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- @JMGN: I don't think anyone appreciates such snarkiness from you. Moreover, instead of wasting time, you could have just mentioned the OED entry and asked for comments on what it means. Sense VI.27 defines give as "To offer, propose as a sentiment or toast." It seems to me that the modern sense in this regard is "to offer (a toast)" (as in "to give a toast"), and that the sense "to make a toast to (someone or something)" (perhaps as in the quotation from Dickens' Pickwick Papers: "Gentlemen, I'll give you the ladies; come."—having read the relevant page the meaning isn't very clear to me) is archaic. The OED entry has not been updated since 1898. (Pinging @-sche who reverted your edit in toast.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like our entry doesn't have that sense at present; in general, it doesn't make sense to list one word as a "synonym" of another without adding the definitions by which they're synonymous. If the OED is correct in their interpretation of those cites and that sense exists (or, existed), it may no longer be current: I haven't spotted modern uses of e.g. someone google books:"who gave the health" of someone else (in a toast), or google books:"he gave the health", and the way that I (at least) would interpret an announcement like "friends, I give you the bride and groom!" at a wedding today is more along the lines of "I present / introduce..." (a sense I notice we also fail to clearly cover―oof, I may try to overhaul the entry later). If the "propose as a toast" sense is real, but archaic or obsolete, then after that sense is added to give with the appropriate tag, any mention of it in toast's
{{syn}}s that is (re)added should include the qualifier (q1=). - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC) - To toast is not synonymous with to propose as a toast. ‑‑Lambiam 12:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Lambiam So what do we do with the noun toast: offer? present? fling? JMGN (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- It seems like our entry doesn't have that sense at present; in general, it doesn't make sense to list one word as a "synonym" of another without adding the definitions by which they're synonymous. If the OED is correct in their interpretation of those cites and that sense exists (or, existed), it may no longer be current: I haven't spotted modern uses of e.g. someone google books:"who gave the health" of someone else (in a toast), or google books:"he gave the health", and the way that I (at least) would interpret an announcement like "friends, I give you the bride and groom!" at a wedding today is more along the lines of "I present / introduce..." (a sense I notice we also fail to clearly cover―oof, I may try to overhaul the entry later). If the "propose as a toast" sense is real, but archaic or obsolete, then after that sense is added to give with the appropriate tag, any mention of it in toast's
Is this its own suffix or only three terms (number homophones) ending in -ce? J3133 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- If -st and -rd are … we include them for clarity and because dictionary users are reasonably likely to search it; I do not essentialistically assume that everything leading or trailing with a hyphen or a kashida as an entry should be regularly understood as an affix, but due to our entry layout these entries need a part-of-speech heading, wherefor there is not much creativity. There is a principle like “add what you find”, actualized for example also on دَسَّى (dassā) or بَرْنِيَّة (barniyya) or many albeit redlinked alternative forms charged with taṣḥīf or similar edition corruption. I mean we can add a thing to specifically say it does not exist or is not productive, right? We well do it because otherwise somebody else would do it, and make it worse—more frequently known from refuted etymologies, though these can often be relegated to reference sections. Fay Freak (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
WORTHY: synonym of worth?
WORTH (adj) 'worthy of': an idea worth some thought https://www.wordreference.com/definition/worth JMGN (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Wordreference shows worth as a preposition. It can be replaced by worth (adj.) plus of (preposition). DCDuring (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Do you mean
worthy (adj.) plus of
? - -sche (discuss) 22:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Do you mean
- Hmm. The grammar of a sentence has to change if one is replaced by the other, as DCDuring suggests: "an idea worth consideration" but "an idea worthy of consideration". (Right?) I'm not convinced they're interchangeable enough to be listed as synonyms. Related terms, sure. - -sche (discuss) 22:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- @-sche Are synonyms defined semantically or syntactically tho? JMGN (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Should Bo'ao and Boao both appear in Category:en:Places in China?
Should Bo'ao and Boao both appear in Category:en:Places in China? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- Related: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/July#Should_alternative_forms_be_in_topical_categories? It's hard to say: there are benefits and drawbacks to either approach; if two forms are particularly dissimilar, it (arguably) helps some people to have both in the category; OTOH, having a category with (say) 500 entries, where 50 are different places and the rest are alt forms of those 50, would (arguably) be unnecessarily hard to use, and such a situation does exist in some cases, e.g. with iluec, as noted in this May 2024 discussion about moving alt forms out of POS categories for at least some languages for similar reasons (which apparently ended without reaching a decision, alas). - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Noun sense 3, "(uncountable) Wealth, fortune, riches, property, possessions. £1.2 million worth of Bitcoins", seems wrong to me; the definition does not appear to be supported by the quotation. The meaning of the word in the quotation doesn't seem to differ from sense 1, "(countable) Value. a dollar's worth of candy, stocks having a worth of two million pounds", only the countability is different. (Am I missing something?) I don't see a definition like our sense 3 in the OED. Should we fold sense 3 into sense 1 and just define it like "(countable or uncountable) Value"? - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- @-sche Best I can furnish:
- JMGN (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Something is a bit off here. If 5Ws means five W's, then what is a singular (non-plural) 5W? The definition can't fit. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5012:C873:C7B5:F40 11:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
- It seems to be used attributively: "the 5W criteria", "the 5W analysis". This, that and the other (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Passive vs participial adjectives
MAKE (transitive) "to cause to exist for a particular reason" (usually passive: "be meant to be sth"):
- He was made to be a star.
Why the different approach? (Maybe this query should go into the beer parlor?) JMGN (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
One sense is " Insurance; a contract for the payment of a sum on occasion of a certain event, as loss or death. Assurance is used in relation to life contingencies, and insurance in relation to other contingencies. It is called temporary assurance, in the time within which the contingent event must happen is limited." This is copied verbatim from Webster's 1913 dictionary. Probably needs updating/deleting TypeO889 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Is there a modern-day word for this in crabs? Possibly a type of maxilliped? TypeO889 (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I noticed the recently added Dublin pronunciation /fʲuːd/. How is it possible to say it with a palatalised f, other than to say it as a rhyme of ‘feud’ ( /fjuːd/)? Also, do people actually say ‘food’ as a (near) homophone of feud in Dublin or anywhere else? If anything, I’d say this sounds more Welsh than Irish. Overlordnat1 (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- The IP who added that and a few other Dublin pronunciations geolocates to Korea. Either someone's a long way from home, or they're venturing out onto thin ice... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- According to w:Dublin English § Phonology, the Dublin accent has the characteristic of pronouncing
goose as moderately or strongly fronted:
. I expect someone heard and interpreted it as . I think feud is probably still distinct, though. If there's any accent where food and feud are homonyms, it's East Anglian, where beautiful is pronounced "bootiful" and few is pronounced foo. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)- I almost mentioned East Anglia and the West Country but that would only account for 'feud' being pronounced as 'food' not 'food' being said as 'feud'. Some weird things go on with yods in Welsh English which is why you/ewe/yew, choose/chews and threw/through can be distinct w:Welsh English. I disagree with the analysis there a bit though, yod-dropping can and most certainly does occur in Welsh English, with 'noo', 'nyoo' and 'nee-oo' all being possible pronunciations of new. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've also heard that the whole thing about chews and choose being distinct in Welsh English is true for only some varieties, not all. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- I almost mentioned East Anglia and the West Country but that would only account for 'feud' being pronounced as 'food' not 'food' being said as 'feud'. Some weird things go on with yods in Welsh English which is why you/ewe/yew, choose/chews and threw/through can be distinct w:Welsh English. I disagree with the analysis there a bit though, yod-dropping can and most certainly does occur in Welsh English, with 'noo', 'nyoo' and 'nee-oo' all being possible pronunciations of new. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- According to w:Dublin English § Phonology, the Dublin accent has the characteristic of pronouncing
Turkish terms related to politics, populism, and reform
Turkish terms related to populism, patriotism, reform, and related civic and political concepts need attention from a native speaker. They attract attention from people who are probably not good English speakers. I can't tell how much they have a political agenda.
For recent examples, see Special:Contributions/78.170.30.253, Special:Contributions/By_caner28, Special:Contributions/78.167.155.186 and Special:Contributions/2001:930:11A:75B:486C:673A:F41E:9EAA. There was another user a couple years ago whose username I forget. Or see the history of inkılapçı (mostly by a now-blocked user) and halkçılık. Automatic translation likes populism for halkçılık. Maybe that's right. The English Wikipedia page for halkçılık is quite unhelpful.
I will add appropriate terms to Category:tr:Politics as I see them. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
en femme: adverb definition
I'm not happy with the adverb definition of en femme which I rewrote: "Of a cross-dressing, non-binary, or trans person: while dressed in feminine clothing". Here are examples of the term used adverbially (which are modifications of quotations in the entry): "She walked through the lobby en femme" (i.e., she walked through the lobby dressed in feminine clothing); "He served them cocktails while dressed en femme" (he served them cocktails while dressed in feminine clothing".
I was thinking of a definition like "Of the action of a cross-dressing, non-binary, or trans person: done while dressed in feminine clothing; also, of the act of dressing by such a person: in feminine clothing". But does this definition actually define an adverb, or does the phrasing suggest an adjective? Please help me out here. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Adding the "done" to the first one does suggest an adjective. And I'm not sure en femme is ever an adjective. All the quotations at en femme#Adjective look adverbial to me. They could all be (purely syntactically) replaced by an unambiguous adverbial prepositional phrase like "on ice". —Mahāgaja · talk 21:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: hmmm, but the quotations in the “Adjective” section seem to show the term unambiguously qualifying the nouns. In any case, how would you redraft the adverb definition? — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- I think the current adverb definition is fine as it is. What don't you like about it? —Mahāgaja · talk 06:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Mahagaja: hmmm, but the quotations in the “Adjective” section seem to show the term unambiguously qualifying the nouns. In any case, how would you redraft the adverb definition? — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- And while we're on the topic, I'm sure I've heard en garçon used as a synonym of en homme, but we don't have that meaning. Has anyone else? —Mahāgaja · talk 21:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Sikes/Psyches
Has anyone ever heard the colloquial phrase get one's sikes meaning "to get one's thrills" or to "get one's rocks off" often from something indecent or shameful (e.g.
) ? I've only ever heard it, never seen it written, so I'm not sure how this is spelt (whether sikes, sykes, psyches). Leasnam (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Definition line does not offer a definition. Are we saying that an Asian woman would be called an "Oxford study", or that she is the subject of one, or what? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:FDB3:C44F:4F50:7012 00:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I've noticed people seem to use this word almost as a replacement of crazy, but in the slang sense. I tried editing the page a bit, but I don't really know how to articulate it well and it seems there are more meanings it covered that crazy doesn't. Any help? | Languagelover3000 (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- It also seems that crazy was also missing this sense...? | Languagelover3000 (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that ‘wild/crazy/insane’ are often used to mean something like ‘wildly unexpected’ and I approve of your recent edits but this sense of ‘diabolical’ has passed me by, could you provide some examples or quotes to support this meaning? Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- Here are 12 quotes from Twitter. I literally just searched "diabolical" in the search tab and was flooded immediately with a plethora of examples with the word in ONLY its slang sense. My argument is that diabolical here is not meaning first two defs—extremely wicked or cruel (like actually evil; not slang sense), or concerning the devil—or at least not literally (maybe figuratively, in a slang sense).
- Below are quotes, edited for punctuation ('cause I'm a grammar nazi like that). Notes are in brackets. Most of these have pictures attached, so the context really clears it up that they do not mean wicked or cruel, or devilish.
- (1) Maybe it's just me, but eating cereal with a glass of milk on the side is diabolical.
- (2) Goofy, after hitting Steve with the most diabolical combo of all time.
- (3) Dating in NYC is diabolical.
- (4) This scene was legit diabolical. Straight up EVIL!
- (5) This shot is diabolical.
- (6) 15M LIKES and 100M views in couple of days is diabolical.
- (7) The "how to save a life" part was absolutely diabolical. 😭
- (8) South Africans hating on Rele Mofokeng has to be the most diabolical thing ever.
- (9) Most times, all you need is good lighting for content creation. But 700 views and 78 likes is diabolical. 😔
- (10) Triple take is DIABOLICAL.
- (11) Only the most diabolical people would talk bad about Rove.
- (12) Bare computer mouse coochie on a public seat is diabolical.
- Lots of these seem like a slang way of saying something like mischievous, naughty or maybe like devious (in the slang way)? But the context is slang, i.e. informal or a bit humorous. Some of these also just seem legit like a replacement of the word "crazy" as in "crazily good" or "crazily unexpected." | Languagelover3000 (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've heard this, but not in the US, mostly UK and Australia. Not all of the examples strike me as unambiguously having the same meaning. Some seem to mean "remarkable" (perhaps in a clever or devious way), others something like "unexpectedly devious or clever". The core is "devious or clever", but sense development seems to have washed that out leaving "remarkable". But that's just my understanding and reading. DCDuring (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I largely share DCDuring's assessment of the meaning; to my understanding, the initial meaning was ~"devilishly devious, cunning", but over time it has been bleached in some cases. Out entry for devilish has room for improvement; I have tried to overhaul it, but the senses blend together in practice. - -sche (discuss) 16:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've heard this, but not in the US, mostly UK and Australia. Not all of the examples strike me as unambiguously having the same meaning. Some seem to mean "remarkable" (perhaps in a clever or devious way), others something like "unexpectedly devious or clever". The core is "devious or clever", but sense development seems to have washed that out leaving "remarkable". But that's just my understanding and reading. DCDuring (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that ‘wild/crazy/insane’ are often used to mean something like ‘wildly unexpected’ and I approve of your recent edits but this sense of ‘diabolical’ has passed me by, could you provide some examples or quotes to support this meaning? Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Entry is locked, but I think this should be removed: "particularly one considered pompous or overly fastidious". The citations do not support it. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:FDB3:C44F:4F50:7012 02:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve just removed it. There are other quotes available if you search ‘I’m/You’re/he’s/she’s/what a neek’ on GoogleBooks but they don’t really support the overly specific definition either. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
The definition reads: "portable rocket launcher, also known (via a backronym) as a rocket-propelled grenade.
" I don't understand what "backronym" is doing in here. Was the Russian term ручной противотанковый гранатомёт constructed as a backronym to fit the letters RPG? That should be in the etymology section instead. Is the definition asserting that the English phrase "rocket-propelled grenade" is a backronym for "RPG" and that "RPG" originally meant something else? That would belong in the English entry's etymology section instead if correct. - -sche (discuss) 15:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- According to the lede of Rocket-propelled grenade,
The term "rocket-propelled grenade" is a backronym from the Russian acronym РПГ (ручной противотанковый гранатомёт, ruchnoy protivotankovy granatomyot), meaning 'hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher', the name given to early Soviet designs.
So apparently the English name was indeed engineered to fit to the initials RPG. I don't know if backronym is really the right name for this process, though. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Aha; thank you; I have edited the Russian definition. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- @-sche: This term seems very SOP to me. Is there something I'm missing or should we RFD it? Thadh (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm, good question. Perhaps whoever entered it thought it had some degree of idiomatic specificity like fried egg. I see we do have rocket-propelled grenade and e.g. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (though maybe we shouldn't). We don't have e.g. man-portable air-defense system (only MANPADS). I defer to you on whether to RFD it. If it's deleted, it seems like all the lexically relevant content (like that the English word is derived from it) can live on at РПГ. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Is this, and red gum, an old term for baby acne? 185.104.136.132 16:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- The words don't seem to have a close connection, except for them both referring to skin issues for babies. Google's AI doesn't "think" they are the same. They apparently have different causes, if AI is to be believed. DCDuring (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've added some more, inconclusive info from Wikipedia to ]. DCDuring (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Some, but not all, old (19th C.) sources distinguish between red-gum (aka strophulus intertinctus) and tooth rash (aka, strophulus confertus). There are other varieties as well. baby acne is also called or confused with milia. None of these seem medically serious, AFAICT, but I wouldn't expect a new mom to believe me. DCDuring (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)